Limberg flap for the management of pilonidal sinus reduces disease recurrence compared to Karydakis and Bascom procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The application of ERAS in pilonidal sinus: comparison of postoperative recovery between primary suture and Limberg flap procedure in a multicenter prospective randomized trial

Purpose

We evaluated the clinical effect of utilizing a Limberg rhomboid flap graft in conjunction with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for the management of pilonidal sinus in the sacrococcygeal region to demonstrate the feasibility of applying ERAS to the treatment of pilonidal sinus.

Methods

Between January 2010 and August 2018, prospective data analysis was undertaken on 109 patients who received surgical treatment for pilonidal sinus in the sacrococcygeal region at the Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Jingzhou Hospital affiliated to Yangtze University, and Taizhou Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine. The patients were randomly separated into two groups based onoperation technique: the control group (pilonidal sinus resection with primary suture) and the observation group (pilonidal sinus resection with Limberg flap graft). Some patients in the above two groups received ERAS after surgery, which included early feeding and early ambulation, etc. Therefore, we further subdivided each group into group A (without ERAS) and group B (with ERAS) according to whether they received ERAS. Comparative analysis was conducted to assess differences in pertinent data before and after surgery across the respective groups.

Results

The length of postoperative hospitalization was shorter and wound dehiscence was more common in control group B than in control group A [(9.00 ± 1.20) vs. (11.07 ± 1.78), 26.7% (8/30) vs. 7.1% (2/28), P < 0.05]. Observation group B exhibited significantly shorter wound recovery periods and postoperative hospital stays compared to observation group A [(8.08 ± 1.20) vs. (9.16 ± 2.21), (26.23 ± 3.97) vs. (29.08 ± 4.74), P < 0.05]. The hospitalization duration and wound healing time in observation group B were notably shorter than those observed in control group B [(8.08 ± 1.20) vs. (9.00 ± 1.20), [26.23 ± 3.97 vs. (43.67 ± 7.26), P < 0.05], but the operation time was longer and scar acceptance was lower [(78.85 ± 10.16) vs. (43.30 ± 6.06), (4.00 ± 0.69) vs. (7.53 ± 0.86), P < 0.05]. The VAS score, infection rate, wound dehiscence rate, subcutaneous hematoma rate and 5-year recurrence rate in observation group B were lower than those in control group B [(5.00 ± 1.39) vs. (7.13 ± 0.78), 3.8% (1/26) vs. 23.3% (7/30), 3.8% (1/26) vs. 26.7% (8/30), 3.8% (1/26) vs. 26.7%(8/30), 7.7% (2/26) vs. 30.0% (9/30), P < 0.05], but the rate of flap ischemia or necrosis was higher [15.4% (4/26) vs. 0(0/30), P < 0.05].

Conclusion

The combination of ERAS with pilonidal sinus resection using Limberg flap graft demonstrated a reduction in infection rates, wound dehiscence, subcutaneous hematoma occurrence, and recurrence rates, along with alleviation of postoperative pain and acceleration of healing time. Comparatively, this approach offers superior advantages over pilonidal sinus resection with primary suture in the management of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus.

Limberg Transpositional Fasciocutaneous Flap in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Disease (SPSD): A Case Series

Introduction Among young male adults, sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease (SPSD) is a prevalent condition. There are several possibilities for treatment, including both conservative and surgical methods. Medical supervision or conservative management is not the cutting-edge and preferred management nowadays. Although not fatal, it negatively impacts young people's quality of life in terms of schooling and means of subsistence and is socially awkward. Method About 10 individuals in this case series have serous drainage from the sinus in the sacral region, which is a common symptom. The patients were entitled to a full recovery from their illness. In all these patients, the Limberg flap procedure was recommended, and just one patient out of 10 had a minimal infection. Every patient was satisfied with how the surgery turned out. Overall, the Limberg flap (rhomboid flap) approach is becoming the norm for care since it has a lower rate of recurrence, fewer postoperative problems, and a shorter learning curve. Result Flap necrosis instances were absent in all the cases. And out of 10 cases, one patient came with a surgical site infection during the follow-up, suggesting a complication rate of 10%. Conclusion For the treatment of primary pilonidal illness, rhomboid excision utilising the Limberg transpositional fasciocutaneous flap technique is seen as a safer option that encompasses numerous sinuses. It requires less time in the hospital and has fewer postoperative problems.

Outcomes of pediatric pilonidal disease treatment: excision with off-midline flap reconstruction versus endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment

PURPOSE

Pilonidal disease (PD) is marked by chronic inflammation and frequent recurrence which can decrease quality of life. However, debate remains regarding the optimal treatment for PD in the pediatric population. This study compares two recommended treatment approaches-excision with off-midline flap reconstruction (OMF: Bascom cleft lift flap, modified Limberg flap) and minimally invasive endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSiT).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective evaluation of patients 1-21 years of age with PD who underwent either excision with OMF reconstruction or EPSiT between 10/1/2011 and 10/31/2021. Outcomes included were disease recurrence, reoperation, and wound complication rates. Comparisons were performed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

18 patients underwent excision/OMF reconstruction and 45 patients underwent EPSiT. The excision/OMF reconstruction cohort was predominantly male (44.4% vs 17.8% p = 0.028), with history of prior pilonidal infection (33.3% vs 6.7%; p = 0.006), and longer median operative time (60 min vs 17 min; p < 0.001). The excision/OMF reconstruction cohort had a higher rate of wound complications (22.2% vs 0%; p = 0.001), but lower rates of disease recurrence (5.6% vs 33.3%; p = 0.022) and reoperation (5.6% vs 31.1%; p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

In pediatric patients with PD, excision with OMF reconstruction may decrease recurrence and reoperation rates with increased operative times and wound complication rates, compared to EPSiT.

Midline and off-midline wound closure methods after surgical treatment for pilonidal sinus

BACKGROUND

Pilonidal sinus disease is a common and debilitating condition. Surgical treatment remains the mainstay for managing chronic disease, with options including midline and off-midline wound closure methods. However, the optimal approach remains uncertain. Recent developments in tension-free midline techniques require further exploration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of midline and off-midline wound closure methods for pilonidal sinus, and to determine the optimal off-midline flap procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus EBSCO, and clinical trials registries. We also scanned the reference lists of included studies, as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. We applied no language, publication date, or study setting restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel RCTs involving participants undergoing midline closure without flap techniques and off-midline closure for pilonidal sinus treatment. We excluded quasi-experimental studies and studies that enroled participants presenting with an abscess.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The critical outcomes included wound healing (time to wound healing, proportion of wounds healed), recurrence rate, wound infection, wound dehiscence, time to return to work, and quality of life. We assessed biases in these outcomes utilising the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and appraised evidence certainty via the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies with 3667 analysed participants. The median or average age of the participants across the included studies ranged from 21.0 to 34.2 years, with a predominant male representation. Geographically, the trials were primarily conducted in the Middle East. We identified nine intervention comparisons. In this abstract, we focus on and present the summarised findings for the three primary comparisons. Off-midline closure versus conventional midline closure Off-midline closure probably reduces the time to wound healing (mean difference (MD) -5.23 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.55 to -2.92 days; 3 studies, 300 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there may be little to no difference between the two methods in the proportion of wounds healed (100% versus 88.5%, risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.39; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Off-midline closure probably results in lower rates of recurrence (1.5% versus 6.8%, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45; 13 studies, 1492 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and wound infection (3.8% versus 11.7%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.49; 13 studies, 1568 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may lower rates of wound dehiscence (3.9% versus 8.9%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; 11 studies, 1389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, off-midline closure may result in a reduced time to return to work (MD -3.72 days, 95% CI -6.11 to -1.33 days; 6 studies, 820 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life. Off-midline closure versus tension-free midline closure Off-midline closure may reduce the time to wound healing (median 14 days in off-midline closure versus 51 days in tension-free midline closure; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence) and increase wound healing rates at three months (94.7% versus 76.4%, RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46; 1 study, 115 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference in rates of recurrence (5.4% versus 7.8%, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.61; 6 studies, 551 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection (2.8% versus 6.4%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17; 6 studies, 559 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and wound dehiscence (2.5% versus 3.0%, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.84; 3 studies, 250 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to tension-free midline closure. Furthermore, off-midline closure may result in longer time to return to work compared to tension-free midline closure (MD 3.00 days, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.48 days; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life. Karydakis flap versus Limberg flap Karydakis flap probably results in little to no difference in time to wound healing compared to Limberg flap (MD 0.36 days, 95% CI -1.49 to 2.22; 6 studies, 526 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to Limberg flap, Karydakis flap may result in little to no difference in the proportion of wounds healed (80.0% versus 66.7%, RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.86; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence), recurrence rate (5.1% versus 4.5%, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.14; 9 studies, 890 participants; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (7.9% versus 5.1%, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.68; 8 studies, 869 participants; low-certainty evidence), wound dehiscence (7.4% versus 6.2%, RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.50; 7 studies, 776 participants; low-certainty evidence), and time to return to work (MD -0.23 days, 95% CI -5.53 to 5.08 days; 6 studies, 541 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane review examines the midline and off-midline wound closure options for pilonidal sinus, predominantly based on young adult studies. Off-midline flap procedures demonstrate there may be benefits over conventional midline closure for pilonidal sinus, with various off-midline flap techniques. When off-midline flap closures were compared to tension-free midline closure, low-certainty evidence indicated there may be improved wound healing and increased time to return to work for off-midline closure, whilst very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be no evidence of a difference in other outcomes. There may be no evidence of an advantage found amongst the off-midline techniques evaluated. The choice of either procedure is likely to be based on a clinician's preference, experience, patient characteristics, and the patients' preferences. To more accurately determine the benefits and potential harms of these closure techniques, further large-scale and meticulously-designed trials are essential. Specifically, there is a pressing need for more studies addressing the paediatric population, in addition to adult studies.

Pilonidal Disease: To Flap or Not to Flap

Pilonidal disease is an acquired disease caused by infected hair follicles imbedded in the midline gluteal area. The diagnosis is made based on clinic examination. Treatment is based on disease severity with minimal invasive techniques like the Bascom I procedure, Moshe Gibs procedure, or video-assisted pilonidal sinus ablation best suited for less complicated cases. However, for recalcitrant diseases, more advanced techniques are needed such as the Karydakis, Limberg, or V-Y advancement flaps.

Progress in the surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: a review

BACKGROUND

A pilonidal sinus (PS) is an acquired disease resulting from recurrent infections and chronic inflammation. A PS involving the sacrococcyx is referred to as a sacrococcygeal PS (SPS). An SPS is a rare chronic infectious disease for which surgery is a good choice. The incidence of SPS has gradually increased worldwide in recent years. However, surgeons have not reached a consensus on the preferred surgical approach for SPS. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze differences in the efficacy of different surgical approaches for the treatment of SPS.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database covering the period from 1 January 2003, to 28 February 2023. The primary outcome parameters were recurrence and infection. Finally, statistical analysis (meta-analysis) was carried out using RevMan 5.4.1 software. In addition, we systematically reviewed the latest progress in the surgical treatment of SPS over the past 20 years, especially as reported in the past 3 years.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles, 54 studies, and 3612 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The recurrence rate following the midline closure (MC) technique was much higher than that of other techniques. Among the techniques analyzed, the differences between MC and Limberg flap (LF), and between MC and marsupialization were statistically significant [ P =0.0002, risk ratio (RR)=6.15, 95% CI 2.40, 15.80; P =0.01, RR=12.70, 95% CI 1.70, 95.06]. The recurrence rate of open healing was higher than that of the Karydakis flap (KF) technique, and the difference was statistically significant ( P =0.02, RR=6.04, 95% CI 1.37, 26.55). Most of the results comparing MC with other techniques suggested that the former had a higher infection rate, and the difference between MC and LF was statistically significant ( P =0.0005, RR=4.14, 95% CI 1.86, 9.23). Comparison between KF and LF, modified LF and KF showed that the differences were not statistically significant in terms of recurrence and infection ( P ≥0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There are various surgical treatment options for SPS, including incision and drainage, excision of diseased tissue with primary closure and secondary healing, and minimally invasive surgery. It is still not possible to determine which surgical technique should be considered the gold standard for treatment, as even the results of different researchers using the same operation method are conflicting. But what is certain is that the midline closure technique has a much higher incidence of postoperative recurrence and infection than other techniques. Therefore, the anorectal surgeon should formulate the most suitable individualized plan for the patient based on a comprehensive evaluation of the patient's wishes, appearance of the SPS, and the professional ability of the surgeon.